SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
China is furious that environmental readings have exposed lies around COVID-19 deaths. The data collected shows a clear mismatch from the information released by the Chinese government about how many people died and at what time. This is a very sensitive subject with China engaging in a cold trade war with Australia over the origins of COVID-19 while providing support to affected smallers countries as calls are made for China to pay billions in penalties due to their coverup.
Before Beijing's crackdown, China's bureaucracy had been conducting business as usual – analysing, assessing and reporting on everything about its citizenry. The researchers from Washington University and Ohio State University say they have tracked down this early government data and combined it with reports in state-controlled and social media.
Among this data was the activities of eight crematories in Wuhan. By January 25 these were inexplicably operating around the clock.
Based on such sources, the researchers argue the total number of infections and fatalities before February was at least ten times that of the official figure announced by Beijing.
[...] The study tracked the sale [of] funeral urns to verify these estimates. In the January-March period during which the crematoriums were operating at peak levels, some 36,000 had been distributed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2020, @09:13PM (6 children)
The right has been claiming that COVID-19 is no deadlier than the seasonal flu. They've cherry picked a preprint that suggested the infection fatality rate was between 0.12% and 0.5% to bolster their claim. Of course, this doesn't take into account the severe long-term effects that simply do not occur with influenza. But the right has used this one preprint to demand that lockdowns end and that the entire economy must reopen immediately. The right is minimizing the seriousness of COVID-19 to argue their domestic policy positions.
On the other hand, the right wants to severely punish China and is also using the WHO as a proxy in their dispute. Apparently when it comes to foreign policy issues, COVID-19 is deadly serious for the right.
I'd like to know how the right reconciles their cognitive dissonance on the matter. COVID-19 has a high death rate and an alarming rate of leaving survivors with long-term health consequences. The misinformation they're spreading in regard to domestic issues actually is quite dangerous. It's interesting how they condemn China for spreading misinformation, then go ahead and spread misinformation about COVID-19 in the US. Even if they don't succeed in forcing social distancing measures to end, people who believe what they're hearing from the right may take unnecessary health risks based on the false belief that COVID-19 isn't any worse than the seasonal flu. I won't even get into the right's penchant for spreading anti-vaxxer bullshit, which is abhorrent.
If we demand accountability from China for their misinformation, surely we must hold right wingers accountable for also spreading misinformation, no? I wish the right and the left would agree on the facts, then argue over the appropriate role and size of government, just like they used to. But I'm alarmed by the level of misinformation and the extreme level of cognitive dissonance that are displayed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @01:54AM
Well there were no consequences for Iraq War 2. In fact, that turned out to be a strength.
(Score: 1) by claywar on Tuesday June 16 2020, @02:08AM (1 child)
And in local policies, if your protest is noble, the consequences are negated. A most noble-novel-coronavirus we must have. If the IFR of 0.26% is cherry-picked, could you please inform the CDC? We're still using them as a reference, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @09:42AM
Did the virus also promise not to infect the protesters with long guns on the Michigan Capitol steps [nbcnews.com]? In both cases, the answer is no. However, the risk of being infected is considerably lower outdoors [nytimes.com] because the virus is rapidly diluted in the air outdoors, particularly if there's a breeze. A person has to be exposed to a certain dose of the virus in order to be infected, whereas lower exposures are not likely to result in infection. It's harder to receive a large enough viral dose outdoors. Both protests are almost certainly safer than Trump's planned rally in Tulsa [nbcnews.com] that will take place with limited safety measures to prevent the spreading of the virus [nbcnews.com].
As for the study in question, here is the actual preprint [medrxiv.org]. It is a preprint, meaning that it hasn't passed peer review. To be clear, peer review is far from bulletproof, but is an important step where concerns about the methodology, analysis techniques, or interpretation of results can be raised. This was an initial study based on antibody testing in Santa Clara County, CA. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of antibody testing. The tests were performed on volunteers recruited on Facebook so the sample of people that were tested may not be representative of the population. To my knowledge, this was the first large-scale study using antibody testing to report results. Reproducibility is critical for any experiment, so additional studies were needed to support the result discussed in this preprint.
Focusing solely on the infection fatality rate really is cherry picking what information to present. An infection fatality rate is roughly 2-3 times that of the seasonal flu most years. The issue is the very high incidence of significant adverse long-term health effects [forbes.com] including decreased lung function [bloomberg.com]. Focusing on the infection fatality rate ignores the significant long-term consequences for many of the people people who survive being infected.
As for the CDC's estimate, that comes from a document with various scenarios to inform modeling studies of COVID-19 in the US [cdc.gov]. The fifth scenario uses what the CDC considers the current best estimate of a number of parameters that describe the behavior of the virus. Notably, these include a 0.4% infection fatality rate for people who are symptomatic and that 35% of people remain asymptomatic, producing an overall infection fatality rate of 0.26%. Scientists have criticized the CDC estimates as being too optimistic [npr.org] and have questioned whether the estimates are being revised downward due to political pressure.
(Score: 2) by Kitsune008 on Tuesday June 16 2020, @02:36AM (2 children)
That would be reasonable and rational, but that is not the reality we live in.
The GOP are finding their overall support on some major issues is falling, and has been for some time, but apathy in voter participation hid this, IMO.
Like cornered rats, they are turning vicious, and lashing out in a last forlorn hope/Hail Mary to stay in power.
From the CDC website today:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html [cdc.gov]
Last updated on June 15, 2020
Total Cases 2,085,769
Total Deaths 115,644
Do the math. We're talking about a 5% death rate for COVID-19. Far worse than the seasonal flu.
I honestly can't envision the mental and policy gymnastics they will resort to, but be assured they will try.
BTW, Agent Orange is coming to my neck of the woods soon, despite the objections of the top health official in Oklahoma.
We are seeing a spike in cases, and clicking on a waiver to register to attend his rally on the 20th(he sadly tried to hold it on the 19th: Juneteenth, in the city of African American massacres in 1921, including bombing of black areas with aircraft) is not immunity from the virus.
Gee thanks, asshole.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 16 2020, @09:18AM (1 child)
Death rate from known/recorded cases. Since a good amount of infected people go through with mild (or no) symptoms without even knowing they caught it:
- the good news is "5% death rate is the max" (rrright! good news, huh!)
- the bad news is "unless the most draconian isolation is observed, covid-19 will run its course until a vaccine becomes available or the humans evolve an immune response which makes a common cold from covid19"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2020, @09:53AM
We are almost certainly undercounting infections for the reasons you suggested and also the limited availability of testing for even more serious cases. However, we are also almost certainly undercounting the deaths from COVID-19 [nytimes.com].